see also comment 151 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/
On November 6, 2014, Westminster Seminary professor R. Scott Clark posted the following under a post titled “The Reformed are Catholic:”
THE CREEDS OF FOUR COUNCILS RECEIVED. And, to say many things with a few words, with a sincere heart we believe, and freely confess with open mouth, whatever things are defined from the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are summed up in the Creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods convened at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon — together with the Creed of blessed Athanasius and all similar symbols; and we condemn everything contrary to these.THE SECTS. And in this way we retain the Christian, orthodox and catholic faith whole and unimpaired; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid symbols which is not agreeable to the Word of God, and does not altogether make for a sincere exposition of the faith. —From Chapter 11 of The Second Helvetic Confession
Twenty days later, on November 26, 2014, Clark posted an article titled “Why Did Jesus Suffer The Torment of Hell?” in which he wrote:
One of the clauses of the [Apostles’] creed that has caused questions is that which reads: “he descended into hell.” It is held in some traditions that by this Christians are confessing that our Lord, after his death, went to the place of the dead. It has been understood figuratively, however, by the Reformed churches to refer to Christ’s suffering. So Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism interpreted this clause.[…]There is nothing in this passage [1 Pet. 3:18-20] about Jesus going to the place of the dead or to the dead ones. That notion arose because of the influence of pagan ideas and tragically was adopted by Christians. Some have advocated that, since we do not believe that Christ went to the place of the dead, we should remove that clause from the creed. Others have defended retaining it.6 Calvin and the Reformed have retained the clause but have understood it to refer to Christ’s sufferings. We should explain that the original sense was merely “buried.” We might omit the clause on the ground that we would be reverting to an earlier form. Arguably we would not be substantially altering a catholic creed as much as removing early medieval accretions from it thus making it less Roman and more catholic.
How does Clark justify denying the doctrine of the harrowing of hell specified not only in the Apostles Creed, but also in the Athanasian Creed, less than three weeks after claiming that by affirmation of these creeds, the Reformed are allegedly “catholic”? He does so by writing the following:
As a matter of history, early on it appears that the “descendit” (he descended) clause was used interchangeably with “sepultus” (buried) and was added in place of “was buried” so that they had the same meaning into as the late 4th century. 3 Thus, “he descended” was another way of saying, “he was buried.”
And what is his evidence that the two terms were used interchangeably? At that footnote “3” Clark provides only one statement from Rufinus:
But it should be known that the clause, “He descended into Hell,” is not added in the Creed of the Roman Church, neither is it in that of the Oriental Churches. It seems to be implied, however, when it is said that “He was buried.”
Because Rufinus says that the descent is implied by “He was buried,” Clark takes this not only as evidence for the interchangeability of the two terms, but as sufficient evidence for the interchangeability of the two terms.
However, just because y is implied by x, we are not thereby justified in inferring that x and y are interchangeable. For example, just because smoke implies fire, we are not justified in inferring that smoke and fire are the same thing, or are interchangeable. Therefore, this statement by Rufinus is not evidence that the two terms were interchangeable.
Moreover, Rufinus, who is providing a commentary on the version of the Apostles’ Creed he learned at Aquileia (in northeastern Italy), defers to the authority of the Church at Rome regarding the Creed when, immediately before discussing the first article of the Creed, he writes the following:
But before I begin to discuss the meaning of the words, I think it well to mention that in different Churches some additions are found in this article. This is not the case, however, in the Church of the city of Rome; the reason being, as I suppose, that, on the one hand, no heresy has had its origin there, and, on the other, that the ancient custom is there kept up, that those who are going to be baptized should rehearse the Creed publicly, that is, in the audience of the people; the consequence of which is that the ears of those who are already believers will not admit the addition of a single word. But in other places, as I understand, additions appear to have been made, on account of certain heretics, by means of which it was hoped that novelty in doctrine would be excluded. We, however, follow that order which we received when we were baptized in the Church of Aquileia.
Since therefore the Church at Rome did not at this time (c. AD 400) include “descendit ad inferos” (He descended into hell) in the Apostles Creed, but subsequently (within two hundred years) did incorporate this line (along with the lines “Creator of Heaven and earth,” “the communion of saints,” and “life everlasting”), Rufinus here shows, by his deferral to the Church at Rome, that he would have accepted these additions as authoritative as they would come to be understood by the Church at Rome.
Not only does Clark fail to justify his claim that the terms descendit and sepultus were interchangeable, but in treating them as interchangeable he rejects the entire patristic Tradition concerning the meaning of this line, i.e. that Christ descended into hell after His death, a truth St. Augustine refers to with the following question: “Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?” (Letter 164.2) On what grounds does Clark reject this Tradition? Simply by stipulating, on the assumption of ecclesial deism, that this Tradition was an accretion from paganism. Clark writes: “That notion arose because of the influence of pagan ideas and tragically was adopted by Christians.”
So on the one hand he claims to be “catholic” (and not a sect) on the grounds that he accepts the four creeds and condemns everything contrary to them. But wherever the creeds don’t fit his interpretation of Scripture and his theology (e.g. “He descended into hell” or “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” or the meaning of each of the four marks of the Church, or the meaning of “the communion of saints”), he just ascribes the patristic understanding of these articles to a pagan accretion, and makes these articles mean whatever he wants them to mean in order to fit his interpretation of Scripture. But that’s exactly what the sects do.
Anyone can claim to submit himself to Tradition, but when one starts picking and choosing or altering the Tradition to fit one’s interpretation, then, as I’ve argued at the top of this page, one is in one’s actions denying the authority of Tradition. The creeds cannot be both authoritative and subject to picking and choosing, by rejecting the meaning of the articles as they were understood by those who put them together and developed them. And if in one’s actions one is denying the authority of the creeds (even if with one’s words one is affirming the authority of the creeds), then Clark’s claim as a confessionalist to stand in a position that is principally different from biblicism, is undermined.
Moreover, Clark has argued against ecclesial deism, claiming that only at Trent did the Church finally depart from the Gospel, and had to be continued outside its institutional structure by the Reformers. But the Fourth Lateran Council (Twelfth Ecumenical) taught authoritatively that Christ,
having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell …. But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time ….
Because this descending is said to take place after His death, it cannot simply be restating His suffering on the Cross. So in teaching that Christ descended into hell (as something distinct from His suffering on the Cross) either the Fourth Lateran departed from the true meaning of the early creeds, and departed from the faith received from the Apostles, or the Fourth Lateran taught the orthodox and universal understanding of “He descended into hell,” and Clark is in [material] heresy for denying this article of the creed. This is one more example, among many, showing that Clark cannot have it both ways. Either the Church preceding the Reformation was the true Church, in which case Clark should submit to her authoritative teachings, and embrace the doctrine of the harrowing of hell, or if the Church in the centuries prior to Trent was not the true Church, then Clark should own up to his ecclesial deism.
Of course I haven’t even begun to address the problem of claiming to be “catholic” on the ad hoc basis of only the first four centuries, as if the Church ceased to develop and define doctrine after the fourth century, and thus as if the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. ecumenical councils are of no matter to the question of catholicity.
No comments:
Post a Comment